See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283110874

Collaborative planning, forecasting and replenishment: a literature review

Article  in  International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management · September 2015

DOI: 10.1108/IJPPM-03-2014-0039

CITATIONS READS

16 1,541

3 authors, including:

Luiz Felipe Scavarda Antonio Marcio Tavares Thomé

Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro
77 PUBLICATIONS   792 CITATIONS    40 PUBLICATIONS   465 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sustainability in Operations Management View project

Supply Chain Integration View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Antonio Marcio Tavares Thomé on 02 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management
Collaborative planning, forecasting and replenishment: a literature review
Roberto Luis Hollmann Luiz Felipe Scavarda Antônio Márcio Tavares Thomé
Article information:
To cite this document:
Roberto Luis Hollmann Luiz Felipe Scavarda Antônio Márcio Tavares Thomé , (2015),"Collaborative
planning, forecasting and replenishment: a literature review", International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 64 Iss 7 pp. 971 - 993
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-03-2014-0039
Downloaded on: 17 September 2015, At: 06:39 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 77 other documents.
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 06:39 17 September 2015 (PT)

To copy this document: [email protected]

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 37 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Antonio Márcio Tavares Thomé, Roberto Luis Hollmann, L.F.R.R. Scavarda do Carmo,
(2014),"Research synthesis in collaborative planning forecast and replenishment", Industrial
Management & Data Systems, Vol. 114 Iss 6 pp. 949-965 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IMDS-03-2014-0085
Gene Fliedner, (2003),"CPFR: an emerging supply chain tool", Industrial Management & Data
Systems, Vol. 103 Iss 1 pp. 14-21 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02635570310456850
Hamid Jafari, (2015),"Logistics flexibility: a systematic review", International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 64 Iss 7 pp. 947-970 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJPPM-05-2014-0069

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:418888 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
 *Related content and download information correct at time of
download.
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 06:39 17 September 2015 (PT)
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0401.htm

Collaborative planning, CPFR: a

literature
forecasting and replenishment: review
a literature review
Roberto Luis Hollmann, Luiz Felipe Scavarda and 971
Antônio Márcio Tavares Thomé Received 8 March 2014
Industrial Engineering Department, Revised 2 October 2014
Accepted 4 October 2014
Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide a systematic review of the literature on
Collaborative Planning, Forecasting and Replenishment (CPFR). The review emphasises the
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 06:39 17 September 2015 (PT)

descriptors of CPFR implementation and models, as well as the impact of CPFR and other supply chain
collaboration (SCC) initiatives on supply chain (SC) performance.
Design/methodology/approach – The systematic review includes 50 full-text papers retrieved
from four databases: Emerald, EBSCO, ScienceDirect and Wiley. Rigorous and verifiable keywords,
review steps and selection criteria were applied to the database and inter-coders agreement was
systematically checked.
Findings – There is no consensus regarding the breadth and scope of CPFR configurations. CPFR
is context-dependent and varies according to the configuration of the SC. Trust, information-
communication technology and the quality of information sharing are main enablers and inhibitors of
implementation.
Practical implications – Practitioners will benefit from insights related to the choice of SCC
configurations (e.g. number of partners, nature of products and spatial complexity), the importance of
trust and empowerment for SCC and the need to outweigh carefully the costs and benefits of specific
SCC before implementation.
Originality/value – CPFR, which is considered by many to be the most advanced and the most
comprehensive SCC process and has a direct impact upon SC performance. Nonetheless, efforts to
synthesise the overall state of the art in CPFR have been rather limited to date. As an effort to fill this
gap, this paper provides a better understanding of the role of CPFR as a determinant of SC
performance. As an effort to contribute to complete the cycle of theory building based on the literature
review, seven propositions for CPFR research are put forward.
Keywords Information technology, Operations management, Supply chain, Trust, Collaboration
Paper type Literature review

1. Introduction
Supply chain collaboration (SCC) has been extensively discussed in the literature, and it
is widely accepted that creating a seamless, synchronised supply chain (SC) leads
to increased responsiveness and lower inventory costs (Holweg et al., 2005). As SCC
has become vitally important for achieving competitive advantage (Kumar and
Banerjee, 2012), top management’s interest in the subject has grown in the last decades
(Danese, 2011). Simatupang and Sridharan (2002) describe SCC as two or more
companies working together to create a competitive advantage and higher profits than
can be achieved by acting alone. SCC is a process that promotes inter-organisational International Journal of
Productivity and Performance
co-operation, joint work, openness, inter-company decision making, information and Management
Vol. 64 No. 7, 2015
pp. 971-993
The authors gratefully acknowledge MCT/CNPq (research project: 313181/2014-4), FAPERJ © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-0401
(research project no. 110.149/2014) and CAPES/DAAD (PROBAL). DOI 10.1108/IJPPM-03-2014-0039
 IJPPM knowledge sharing and customer-supplier intimacy (Danese, 2011). SCC or partnering
64,7 in SCs is often viewed as a source of competitive advantage, through long-term
strategic partnerships between firms driven by value creation and mutual profitability
or through shorter term operational gains to attain parity with competitors (Mentzer
et al., 2000; Boddy et al., 2000). Several particular forms of partnering implementation
emerged as SCC projects in the past decades, such as efficient consumer response
972 (ECR), vendor-managed inventories (VMI), collaborative planning, forecasting and
replenishment (CPFR), among others (Mentzer et al., 2000).
Since the mid-1990s, a large number of SCC initiatives have been developed to
improve SC performance and have been discussed in the literature (Holweg et al., 2005;
Kumar and Banerjee, 2012; Ramanathan, 2014). Among these initiatives, CPFR is
considered by many researchers to be the most advanced and the most comprehensive
(Barratt and Oliveira, 2001; Seifert, 2003; Attaran and Attaran, 2007; Du et al., 2009;
VICS, 2010; Danese, 2011).
CPFR was developed by practitioners in the mid-1990s (Poler et al., 2008) as
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 06:39 17 September 2015 (PT)

Collaborative Forecasting and Replenishment (CFAR), being defined at that time as a

“new” inter-organisational system that enabled retailers and manufacturers to jointly
forecast demand and schedule production, allowing exchange of complex decision
support models and manufacturing/retailer strategies (Raghunathan, 1999). Later the
concept was renamed CPFR to emphasise the main role of planning (Seifert, 2003;
Burnette, 2010). The first CPFR pilot project was conducted by Wall-Mart, Warner-
Lambert, SAP, Manugistics and Benchmarking Partners (Fliedner, 2003; Attaran, 2004;
Danese, 2006a, b, 2007; Attaran and Attaran, 2007; Lapide, 2010). The first academic
papers specifically examining the subject date from the end of last century. Within the
last two decades, however, the body of literature on CPFR has grown significantly.
Despite this growth, efforts to synthesise the overall state of the art of research in this
area have been rather limited. Two recent literature reviews partly fulfil this gap. The
review from Thomé et al. (2014) is the closest research to the one described in this paper.
The authors offer a conceptual framework that gather and integrate findings on CPFR as
a business process and as a management practice, assembling quantitative evidences of
its effect on SC performance. However, they do not focus on CPFR implementation
process, CPFR models and the relationship with other SCC initiatives, as proposed in
this paper. Eksoz et al. (2014) focus on collaborative forecasting in food SC and offer
a conceptual framework for research. They limit their review to the overlap between SC
integration, collaborative forecasting, information sharing and forecasting process.
Within this context, this paper aims to complement previous reviews and to
contribute further to fill the literature gap by providing a systematic review focusing
on the implementation process, CPFR models and its relationship with other SCC
initiatives. It also aims at complementing Thomé et al. (2014) efforts geared at a better
understanding of the role of CPFR as a determinant of SC performance. The CPFR
review is organised by methodology and conceptual framework, key definitions,
differences with others SCC initiatives, implementation requirements and CPFR
models. A conclusion section with an agenda for research closes the paper. This study
reviews 659 abstracts and retrieves 50 studies for analysis and classification.

2. Methodology
This methodology section first describe the literature review protocol with the research
limitations and next the conceptual framework that guided the analysis of results and
research propositions.
 2.1 Literature review protocol CPFR: a
The paper is a systematic literature review on CPFR. Systematic literature reviews literature
are a means of providing an objective theoretical evaluation of a particular topic
(Hopayian, 2001). As such, this type of review facilitates the identification, evaluation
review
and interpretation of studies in a given area by first examining existing concepts,
practices and theories and subsequently summarising the state of the reproducible
research in a specific area (Rowley and Slack, 2004; Seuring and Müller, 2008). 973
Literature reviews facilitate a better understanding of the issues associated with a topic
of research (Burgess et al., 2006) and provide guidance for future studies to address
existing knowledge gaps.
The selection and retrieval of papers in the systematic review conducted in this paper
is a six-step process adapted from Thomé et al. (2012a, b). It consists of: first, computerised
database selection; second, identification of keywords for search; third, criteria for the
exclusion of studies; fourth, manual review of selected abstracts by two researchers; fifth,
full-text review; and sixth, review of selected references from articles retrieved in step fifth.
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 06:39 17 September 2015 (PT)

Consistent with Thomé et al. (2012a, b), this research initially selected three
databases (Emerald, EBSCO and ScienceDirect). Additionally, one more was included
to enlarge coverage further (Wiley). The selected database were included because it
contains papers published in the large majority of scientific journals pertaining to
operations, organisational management and social sciences. However, the non-inclusion
of other databases can be construed as a limitation. Another reason to select this set of
database was the inclusion of grey literature, which is particularly relevant in a subject
that emerged from and is still present in business and industry magazines. A grey
literature review was included in the search databases and manual searches. Scientific
grey literature consists of newsletters, reports, working papers, theses, government
documents, bulletins, fact sheets, conference proceedings and other publications that
are distributed freely, available by subscription or available for purchase (Weintraub,
2000). The grey literature allows the inclusion of bibliographic sources that extends
beyond peer-reviewed academic journals and that are likely not to be selected otherwise
(Thomé et al., 2012a). In accordance with recommendations for an initial research
synthesis (Cooper, 2010), the keywords selected were sufficiently broad to avoid
artificially limiting results while still providing limitations to avoid undesirable results.
In pseudo code, the following phrase was adapted to the search engines in each
database: Collaborative Planning, Forecasting and Replenishment AND CPFR with no
limitations regarding publication dates.
The search returned 659 papers. The full bibliography is available upon request
from the lead author. Following Cooper (2010), threats to validity were regrouped in
broad categories and used as criteria for the exclusion of papers. The authors adopted
seven exclusion criteria: first, lack of relevance or poorly defined constructs of CPFR;
second, CPFR incorporated as an example, rather than as a research topic; third, papers
treating CPFR elements in isolation of each other, such as inventory management,
replenishment or demand forecast; fourth, papers’ based only on authors’ opinions and/
or anecdotal evidence; fifth, papers from trade and industry magazines; sixth, papers
failing to reach inter-coder agreement; seventh, papers showing causal relationships
that did not present clearly defined empirical evidence based on explicit mathematical
modelling, simulations, survey research or case studies.
Based on the reading of abstracts, duplicate papers and papers that did not
correspond to the selection criteria were excluded, resulting in 56 papers selected for
full-text review. After the full-text reading, an additional six papers were excluded.
 IJPPM Papers added as a result of Step sixth were used during the analysis. The review
64,7 process of abstracts by two authors was interactive and resulted in high levels of
agreement with a Cohen’s kappa in the 0.87-0.99 interval (95 per cent CI) (Cohen, 1960).
This six-step process resulted in 50 papers that were ultimately reviewed and
cross-examined by three researchers.

974 2.2 Research framework

This research is based on a conceptual framework adapted from Thomé et al. (2014)
and is displayed in Figure 1. A conceptual framework consist in two or more
interrelated propositions that explain an event, provide understanding or suggest
testable hypotheses (Meredith, 1993). For Whetten (1989), a framework is a useful mean
to represent the relationships between concepts, variables and constructs which
explain a subject. Conceptual research methods such as the one proposed in this study
contributes to increase the external validity of operations management research, aid in
theory building and strength the research relevance to practitioners (Meredith, 1993).
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 06:39 17 September 2015 (PT)

The conceptual framework depict the main CPFR descriptors: context, inputs,
structure and processes, outcomes, results. It also embraces the vertical functional role of
CPFR in bridging business and corporate strategic plans from SC partners with joint SC
operations. From a contingency theory’s standing point (Sousa and Voss, 2008), one can
expect that CPFR would behave differently in different contexts, as shown in multiple
case study research (Danese, 2011) and as reflected in the descriptor of context. The most
relevant contextual variables are region/country, industry type, product characteristics,
level of product aggregation, manufacturing strategy, hierarchical planning, planning
horizons, goals of CPFR, number of SC partners and market dynamics.
Main inputs are information on demand (e.g. consumption data, sales/demand forecast,
promotional plans, new product introduction), source/delivery (e.g. replenishment plans,
fulfilment rates, cost-service targets), inventory/production (e.g. inventory level,
production plans, inventory policies) and finance (e.g. information and financial flows).
Structure and processes are described in the four main categories of meetings
and collaboration, organisation, information and communications technology (ICT); and
metrics. Meetings and collaboration among firms are described through the number
and type of participants; trust and confidence as well as the length of their relationships;
level of collaboration (limited or full) and meeting regularity. Organisational variables are
analysed through the lenses of organisational readiness for CPFR and how the teams and
processes are organised (steps, agenda, purpose and reach). Technologies for CPFR are
regrouped in general information systems as enterprise resource planning, analytics
(advanced planning software, models, simulation) and other ICTs (e.g. EDIs, web portals).
Metrics aims at measuring end results (grouped into market related, operational and
financial) as well as the CPFR process in itself.

Business and Corporate Strategic Plans from SC partners

Context Inputs CPFR Structure & Processes Outcomes Results

Figure 1. Supply Chain Operations

Research framework
Source: Adapted from Thomé et al. (2014)
 The main expected outcomes are collaborative plans, collaborative forecasts and CPFR: a
collaborative replenishments. It is expected that outcomes would impact upon end literature
results in all three broad areas of market-related, operational and financial results.
The focus of this paper is on the dotted rectangular area of Figure 1. Consistent with
review
the aim of this literature review, it looks specifically at the CPFR implementation
processes, models, relationship with other SCC initiatives and performance.
975
3. Defining CPFR
CPFR originally started as CFAR, claiming that is was the fastest way for retailers and
manufactures to slash inventory costs and product shortages based on coordinating
their decisions (Raghunathan, 1999; Poler et al., 2008; Lapide, 2010; Burnette, 2010).
CPFR is a collaborative initiative among SC members intended to improve the
relationship among them through a joint planning process that incorporates the
sharing of information, risks, benefits/revenues, costs and synchronised forecasts.
Based on this collaboration and sharing, the production and replenishment processes
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 06:39 17 September 2015 (PT)

are determined (ECR Europe, 2001, Fliedner, 2003; Larsen et al., 2003; Seifert, 2003;
Simatupang and Sridharan, 2005; Chen et al., 2007; D’Aubeterre et al., 2008; Chang and
Wang, 2008; Danese, 2011).
The CPFR model comprises the processes of collaborative planning, forecasting and
replenishment, which, in turn are subdivided into specific steps or tasks (VICS, 1998).
CPFR is established by an agreement between trading partners to cooperate on
strategy, tactics and execution by a resolution of exceptions (Derrouiche et al., 2008),
thereby eliminating the supply/demand uncertainty through improved
communications/collaborations (Attaran and Attaran, 2007). An exception is
understood as any deviation from any forecast that is beyond an agreed-upon
threshold (Chang and Wang, 2008). Hence, CPFR is a process whereby SC trading
partners exchange sales and order forecasts and then correct, adjust, and propose
prices and quantities to develop a unique forecast (Caridi et al., 2005, 2006).
CPFR creates value to end customers and improves overall SC performance by
providing standardised information and establishing objective plans that allow for an
efficient flow of goods based on demand (Shu et al., 2010). Accordingly, CPFR combines
the intelligences of multiple trading partners and links the best practices in sales
and marketing to move the SC from reactive management to proactive planning and
execution (VICS, 2004; Smith et al., 2010; VICS, 2010; Ramanathan, 2014). CPFR integrates
business activities that are internal and external to the firm, thereby providing a good
collaboration alternative to other SC integration schemes (Chen et al., 2007). For instance,
CPFR can embrace retail event/promotions, distribution centre replenishment, store
replenishment and assortment planning (VICS, 2004).
CPFR bridges supply and demand among SC trading partners (Stank et al., 1999;
Simatupang and Sridharan, 2005; Chang et al., 2007; Sari, 2008b) and results in: first,
improved service level while simultaneously reducing inventory and costs (Stank et al.,
1999; Larsen et al., 2003; VICS, 2004; Chen et al., 2007; Du et al., 2009; Smith et al., 2010;
VICS, 2010); second, promotion of greater integration, visibility and cooperation among
partners (Büyüközkan et al., 2009); and third, a holistic approach to SC management
(Sherman, 1998). CPFR aims to optimise the SC performance among SC trading
partners from the production and delivery of raw materials to the production and
delivery of final products to the end consumer (Danese et al., 2004).
Based on the extant literature, a comprehensive definition of CPFR is proposed:
CPFR is a cohesive bundle of business processes whereby SC trading partners
 IJPPM share information, synchronised forecasts, risks, costs and benefits with the intent
64,7 of improving overall SC performance through joint planning and decision making.
Accordingly, CPFR enhances customer demand visibility and matches supply and
demand with a synchronised flow of goods from the production and delivery of
raw materials to the production and delivery of the final product to the end consumer.
The model encompasses different business processes that are subdivided into specific
976 steps or tasks.
Trends and evolution of CPFR research in the past two decades were three-fold:
first, trends in the evolution of methods and materials used to research the subject;
second, evolution from previous partnering initiatives in SC; and third, the evolution of
CPFR models themselves. The first trend is illustrated in Figure 2. It can be noticed that
conceptual model, single and multiple case studies, survey research and simulations
were well represented in all periods, since the first publications in 1998. The exception
are industry reports, more often published in 2004-2005, with a regain of interest in
2010 but that are absent thereafter. It is not surprising that simulation and
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 06:39 17 September 2015 (PT)

mathematical programming are the empirical methodologies of choice as they are

responsible for the economy of large investments required in real-life SC experiments
(Audy et al., 2012; Ramanathan, 2014). CPFR evolution from other SC partnering
initiatives is described in Section 4 (“CPFR vs other SCC initiatives”). The evolution of
CPFR models is described in Section 6 (“CPFR Models”).

4. CPFR vs other SCC initiatives

The literature offers several examples of SCC beyond CPFR, such as VMI, continuous
replenishment (CR), quick response (QR), ECR, continuous replenishment policy (CRP),
synchronised consumer response, rapid replenishment, centralised inventory
management, accurate response and joint managed inventory ( JMI) (Barratt and
Oliveira 2001; Danese, 2006a; Chen et al., 2007; Småros, 2007; Derrouiche et al., 2008;
Yuan et al., 2010; Ramanathan and Gunasekaran, 2014).

1
Figure 2.
0
Trends and 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
evolution of Conceptual model Survey Simulation Case study, multiple
CPFR research Industry report Case study, single Literature review Mathematical-Modeling
 CPFR emerges with the aspiration to cover gaps from previous SCC initiatives, CPFR: a
such as VMI and ECR, with the incorporation of promotion plans in sales forecasts, literature
increased responsiveness to changing demand patterns and better coordination
along the SC (Barratt and Oliveira, 2001). CPFR takes a more comprehensive approach
review
than prior SC initiatives with respect to the planning of promotions, sales and orders
forecast; synchronisation of plans between trading partners; the making of joint
decisions and the management of exceptions (Danese, 2011). Attaran (2004) contends 977
that before CPFR financial plans took precedence over forecasting, SCC initiatives
resulted in high inventory levels, low-order fill rates and increased expedited activities.
According to Burnette (2010), CPFR is an exception-driven process while the other
collaborative initiatives are more data driven and exceptions are not part of the process.
Through exception management, trading partners can collaboratively review sales
and order forecasts (Du et al., 2009; Burnette, 2010), and they can do so on a large
scale (Du et al., 2009).
CPFR can be viewed as a second generation of ECR (Stank et al., 1999; Larsen et al.,
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 06:39 17 September 2015 (PT)

2003; Seifert, 2003; Ramanathan, 2014). For Holmström et al. (2002) ECR combines
efficient replenishment and category management but fails to synchronise plans
among trading partners.
Some authors refer to CPFR as an evolution from VMI and CR/CRP (Barratt and
Oliveira, 2001; Attaran, 2004; Cassivi, 2006; Thron et al., 2006; Attaran and Attaran,
2007; Danese, 2011) as CPFR captures the advantages of such programmes while
adding the collaborative mechanism to facilitate information exchange in a multi-tiered
SC (Cassivi, 2006). Some retailers discontinued their VMI project because they were
unsatisfied with the results, mainly due to the lack of collaboration, the forecasting
ability of the suppliers and the vendors’ inability to address product promotions
(Sari, 2008b; Yuan et al., 2010). Despite the fact that CPFR and VMI are different
initiatives in SC, they can be implemented together in some cases. Holmström et al.
(2002) suggest that replenishment methods such as VMI can help the trading partners
to implement a more integrated CPFR model. Danese et al. (2004) describe two case
studies where the companies successfully implemented CPFR and utilised VMI to aid in
the replenishment of the distribution centres. According to VICS (2004), CPFR is
compatible with VMI and traditional ordering processes. The difference in these
alternatives is the role played by the lead company in sales forecasting, order planning/
forecasting and order generation. Thron et al. (2006, 2007) successfully simulate a CPFR
process where retailers are replenished through VMI.
Studies comparing different SCC initiatives and their impact on performance
are depicted in Table I, which highlights research methodology, SCC initiatives,
performance dimensions and primary findings.
Results from these studies indicate that CPFR has better results than other SCC
initiatives. However, Sari (2008a, b) concludes that under some conditions the gains in
performance of CPFR over VMI does not justify the additional costs required for CPFR.
Yuan et al. (2010) find that JMI’s performance is nearly comparable to that of CPFR and
that, as a result, the decision between the two depends on several factors, such as ICT
availability, trust between trading partners, format/type of financing system and the
geographical spread of retailers. These conclusions corroborate the findings of
McCarthy and Golicic (2002), who find that in certain cases, alternative collaborative
forecasts can obtain better results with less investment than that provided by CPFR.
The literature also offers many examples of positive impacts of CPFR on SC
performance. Some of the effects quoted are: shortened cycle time, reduced costs,
 IJPPM SCC Performance
64,7 Reference Methodology initiatives dimensions Main findings

Sari (2008a) Simulation VMI and CPFR is more sensitive to inventory

SC costs and
CPFR customer inaccuracy in terms of cost savings and
customer service. Although CPFR has a
service level
better performance than VMI, when the
978 inventory inaccuracy rate increases, the
additional performance provided by CPFR
over VMI is significantly reduced. Both
initiatives are more sensitive to inaccurate
inventory information when customer
demand uncertainty is low and/or when lead
times are short
Sari (2008b) Simulation VMI and SC costs and CPFR benefits are always higher than VMI,
CPFR customer but in some conditions (short lead time and/
service level or tight manufacturing capacity) the gap in
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 06:39 17 September 2015 (PT)

the performance is not high

Yuan et al. Dynamic VMI, JMI Inventory and CPFR has the better performance, but it is
(2010) simulation and CPFR responsiveness very close to JMI
Audy et al. Mathematical CR, VMI Profitability CPFR generates the largest system profit,
(2012) modelling and CPFR followed by VMI and CR. However,
analysing the profit separately for
manufacturer and wholesaler, CR presents
the highest profit to the wholesaler, while
CPFR still produces the highest profit to the
Table I. manufacturer. When the manufacturer
Studies comparing shared part of the transportation savings
different with the retailer, CPFR became the best
SCC initiatives option for both trading partners

increased sales revenue, improved forecast accuracy and service level (Attaran, 2004;
Simatupang and Sridharan, 2005; Danese, 2006b; Attaran and Attaran, 2007;
Chang et al., 2007; Danese, 2007; Chang and Wang, 2008; Burnette, 2010; Smith et al., 2010).
Despite evidences drawn from case study research, survey-based empirical
consubstantiation of CPFR impact on SC performance is still scarce (Yao et al., 2013;
Thomé et al., 2014). For Ramanathan (2014) performance evaluation of SCC is
a complex task and research on this topic should be pursued further.
Based on evidences from case study research and the on-going debate on the
circumstances under which different SCC initiatives affect SC performance, the
following research propositions are prompted:
P1. CPFR have a positive impact on SC performance.
P2. All other things being equal, CPFR impact in SC results outperform the impact
of other SCC initiatives.
There are differences in performances even among different CPFR configurations. Chen
et al. (2007) compare four different CPFR configurations and a non-collaborative SC. The
configurations differ according to: first, who takes the lead in the steps of sales forecasting,
order forecasting and order generation; second, information sharing; and third, handling of
exceptions. Nobody takes the lead for sharing information or managing exceptions
in the non-collaborative SC. In Scenario 1, the retailer is responsible for all three steps –
 sharing promotion and sales information and managing sales and order forecast CPFR: a
exceptions. In Scenario 2, sales forecast are led by the retailer while order forecasts and literature
generation are led by the manufacturer and information regarding promotion, sales,
inventory and capacity, sales and order forecast exceptions is handled by the retailer. In
review
Scenario 3, sales and order forecasts are led by the retailer, order generation is led by the
manufacturer, and information on promotion, inventory, sales and order forecast
exceptions is shared by the retailer. In Scenario 4, the manufacturer assumes responsibility 979
for all three steps, sharing inventory and capacity information and managing sales and
order forecast exceptions. All the CPFR-based SCs outperformed the non-collaborative SCs
with respect to service level, fulfilment rate, cycle time and costs. Among CPFR-based SCs,
the best performer was the scenario where more information was exchanged among
partners. The authors suggest that the selection of the more adequate collaboration
scenario is dependent upon the knowledge and technology level of trading partners.
As there are many SCC initiatives that can improve SC performance, there is no rule
of thumb regarding how to choose the best option. For Sari (2008a) there is not a
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 06:39 17 September 2015 (PT)

consensus between the researches which SCC initiative should be implemented across
the SC. Derrouiche et al. (2008) apply information systems theory to CPFR and propose
an information/managerial framework to identify the information flow demand and
constraints imposed upon trading partners. Tyan and Wee (2003) suggest that the
choice of CPFR configuration may vary according to the power structure of the
retailer-supplier relationship. CPFR is the better choice when each of the two partners
possesses a high degree of power, VMI is the choice when the supplier overpowers the
retailer, and QR is the choice when the balance of power favours the retailer. CMI, ECR
and CRP occupy intermediate positions in this framework. Based on on-going research
on CPFR configuration, the following proposition is put forward:
P3. CPFR outcomes and its effect on SC performance varies according to different
CPFR configurations.

5. Implementing CPFR
CPFR implementation can take a number of different forms across supply networks
according to the depth and scope of the collaboration (Larsen et al., 2003, Seifert, 2003,
Danese, 2007, 2011). Several authors stress that CPFR must begin with only a few
activities, after which it can gradually expand the scope of collaboration (Barratt and
Oliveira, 2001; ECR Europe, 2001; Larsen et al., 2003; Seifert, 2003; Danese, 2011).
Simatupang and Sridharan (2005) use a collaborative SC framework to present the
implementation of five critical features that aid trading partners during the initial
discussion and implementation of CPFR. These features include: first, a collaborative
performance system: the development of metrics that guide the chain members to
improve overall performance; second, decision synchronisation: the ability to manage
critical decisions at the planning and execution levels to optimise SC profitability; third,
information sharing: the access to proprietary data from the partners, thereby enabling
the monitoring of the flow of goods throughout the SC; fourth, incentive alignment: the
motivation of the trading partners to reinforce the attainment of overall performance
targets by sharing risks, benefits and costs; and fifth, integrated SC processes: efficient
SC processes that deliver products to end customers in a timely manner at lower costs.
Since 1998 when the Voluntary Inter-industry Commerce Solutions (VICS – formerly
Voluntary Inter-industry Commerce Standards) committee published its first guideline,
more than 300 companies have implemented CPFR (Yao et al., 2013). However, despite
 IJPPM the benefits of the process and several successful CPFR implementations, projects in
64,7 large scale are still scarce (Småros, 2007) and the use of CPFR in SC is limited
(Büyüközkan and Vardaloğlu, 2012). Implementation of CPFR projects is often a
complex task (Thron et al., 2006, 2007; Sari, 2008b). Although the literature offers
various CPFR models as described in Section 6, there are a paucity of multiple case
study research on CPFR implementation. Comparative studies focused on the
980 systematic analysis of CPFR enablers and barriers are also scarce, despite the fact that
several papers quote isolated examples of enablers and barriers. As a first step to
implement CPFR, the trading partners should create an environment based on trust
and technology (Barratt and Oliveira, 2001). Trust is the most cited enabler in the
literature (e.g. Barratt and Oliveira, 2001; Larsen et al., 2003; Attaran and Attaran, 2007;
Chang et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2007; Småros, 2007; Chang and Wang, 2008; Büyüközkan
et al., 2009; Choi et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2010; Yuan et al., 2010; Büyüközkan and
Vardaloğlu, 2012; Yao et al., 2013; Eksoz et al., 2014; Thomé et al., 2014). Furthermore,
several authors have mentioned that a lack of trust serves as a barrier to the
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 06:39 17 September 2015 (PT)

implementation of CPFR (Barratt and Oliveira, 2001; Fliedner, 2003; Attaran, 2004;
Thron et al., 2006, 2007; Attaran and Attaran, 2007; Chen et al., 2007; Småros, 2007.;
Eksoz et al., 2014; Thomé et al., 2014). According to Barratt and Oliveira (2001), as trust
is developed from a long-term perspective, a possible approach is to: first, define a
single point of contact for each trading partner; second, define the agenda for
collaboration; third, expand collaborative projects (scope and complexity); fourth,
ensure continuous sharing of information; and fifth, develop a trust-based relationship.
To expand the scope of collaboration, several alternatives are to expand the scope of
the processes, increase the number of processes, increase the level of detail, increase the
product offering, automate the processes, add trading partners and integrate the results
(Barratt and Oliveira, 2001). These results prompt to the following proposition:
P4. Trust among SC partners is a main enabler for CPFR implementation.
Büyüközkan et al. (2009) and Büyüközkan and Vardaloğlu (2012) conclude that
available, appropriate and accurate communication (information sharing quality) is the
most crucial factor for CPFR implementation success. Lack of information sharing
among partners in food SC seems a major obstacle to collaborative forecast (Eksoz
et al., 2014). This result is consistent with studies investigating the impact of
information sharing on SC performance (e.g. Wu and Cheng, 2008). While it is
acknowledged that ICT enables information sharing (Ghosh and Fedorowicz, 2008),
there is no consensus regarding the required level and complexity of ICT, which can
vary from simple tools, such as a fax machine, to more advanced internet-based
solutions (Danese, 2006a). VICS (2004) and Ramanathan (2014) contend that while ICT
can make the process more scalable, it is not essential to the implementation of CPFR.
The following propositions summarises the role of information sharing and ICT:
P5. The quality of information sharing is a powerful lever for CPFR implementation.
P6. Information sharing is enhanced by trust and by the use of adequate ICT.
Top management support (Attaran and Attaran, 2007; Chen et al., 2007; Büyüközkan
et al., 2009; Smith et al., 2010; Büyüközkan and Vardaloğlu, 2012; Ramanathan, 2014),
internal forecasting processes (McCarthy and Golicic, 2002; Fliedner, 2003; Chen et al., 2007;
Smith et al., 2010), risk and profit sharing (Chen et al., 2007; Yaun et al., 2010) and proper
staff training (Attaran and Attaran, 2007) are also cited as enablers to the CPFR process.
 Other barriers to CPFR mentioned in the literature include investments in CPFR: a
technology (Fliedner, 2003; Småros, 2007), a lack of internal integration/collaboration literature
(Fliedner, 2003; Småros, 2007; Ramanathan and Gunasekaran, 2014), a lack of a clear
understanding of collaborations and SCC’s impact from long-term partnerships on profit
review
earnings (Ramanathan and Gunasekaran, 2014), information security and confidentiality
(Büyüközkan et al., 2009; Audy et al., 2012; Büyüközkan and Vardaloğlu, 2012), system
incompatibility (Audy et al., 2012), over-dependence on technology when implementing 981
CPFR, lack of ability to differentiate between with whom to collaborate and in what
order (Thron et al., 2006, 2007) and security protocols (Hvolby and Trienekens, 2010).
Larsen et al. (2003) propose the only maturity model for CPFR encountered in this
review. The model embraces three CPFR levels: basic (few partners and activities with
low-transactional costs), developed (increased integration and expanded scope with
enhanced responsiveness) and advanced (synchronised planning, promotion,
marketing and new product launching). Larsen et al. (2003) contend that the basic
CPFR is generally the starting point for other collaboration initiatives. From a long-
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 06:39 17 September 2015 (PT)

term perspective, the goal is to reach the advanced stage.

Danese (2011) explains differences among CPFR configurations based on the
following contextual variables: demand elasticity and uncertainty, goals of the process
(responsiveness vs efficiency), number of products (same/different products sold by
suppliers and customers), and SC spatial complexity (number of partners and
geographical distance). The levels and scope of collaboration (limited and synchronised
communications) vary according to the contextual variables rather than as an evolution
from basic to advanced CPFR, as predicted by Larsen et al. (2003)’s maturity model.
Several authors cite different numbers of participants in CPFR initiatives. For
example, Holmström et al. (2002) posit that mass collaboration is needed, while
Büyüközkan et al. (2009) and Büyüközkan and Vardaloğlu (2012) state that it is
necessary to select a small number of participants. Ramanathan (2014) concludes that a
higher number of trading partners does not mean a higher level of performance. For
Audy et al. (2012), the right number of partners depends on the industrial context.
Similar to Audy et al. (2012), Danese (2011) states that there is no general rule regarding
the number of participants as it is a contingency variable that is specific to the
environment and context in which the CPFR is implemented. Consistent with Danese
(2011), the following research proposition is advanced:
P7. CPFR implementation and its effects on SC performance are contingent upon
contextual variables of market dynamics, goals of the CPFR process, scope of
the CPFR initiative (number of products, number of partners) and the spatial
complexity of SC.

6. CPFR models
The literature offers various models that organise CPFR according to processes, steps,
activities and tasks. The first model was published by the VICS committee in 1998
in a working paper with best practices and a guideline for implementation (Barratt
and Oliveira, 2001; Larsen et al., 2003; Danese, 2007; Poler et al., 2008; Du et al., 2009). The
different models offered in the literature are introduced in Table II and discussed herein.
The 1998 VICS model begins with the creation of a front-end agreement that
establishes the scope and assigns roles, responsibilities, checkpoints and escalation
procedures with respect to collaboration. Furthermore, it develops a scorecard to
track SC metrics and establishes incentives (Barratt and Oliveira, 2001; Danese et al.,
 IJPPM No. of steps/
64,7 Reference tasks Model descriptions

VICS (1998) 9 CPFR is based on a linear process with nine steps: (1) develop
front-end agreement; (2) create joint business plan; (3) create sales
forecast; (4) identify exceptions to sales forecast; (5) resolve exceptions
to sales forecast; (6) create order forecast; (7) identify exceptions to
982 order forecast; (8) resolve exceptions to order forecast; and (9) generate
order. These nine steps are organised into three processes: planning,
forecasting and replenishment
Fliedner (2003) 5 CPFR is established through five iterative steps: (1) create front-end
agreement; (2) create joint business plan; (3) develop forecast; (4)
sharing forecast; and (5) replenish inventory
VICS (2004) 8 CPFR consists of four activities, each of which is divided into two tasks:
(1) strategy and planning: collaborative arrangement and joint business
plan; (2) demand and supply management: sales forecasting and order
planning/forecasting; (3) execution: order generation and order
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 06:39 17 September 2015 (PT)

fulfilment; (4) analysis: exception management and performance

assessment
Caridi et al. 9 This model is based on VICS (1998) and suggests that the process can
(2005, 2006) be improved with autonomous agents. The authors propose two CPFR
models with agent-based models to optimise the negotiation steps
(exception management) in the CPFR process. The autonomous agents
are entities that have problem-solving capabilities can therefore
propose solutions to solve the exceptions
Chang et al. 9 This model is an augmented CPFR also based on VICS (1998). The
(2007) authors include in the process an application service provider (ASP)
that uses market information to improve forecast accuracy and
replenishment. The process has nine steps: (1) draft agreement;
(2) develop joint business plan; (3) forecast sales; (4) identify unusual
sales forecasts; (5) deal collaboratively with unusual items; (6) forecast
orders; (7) identify unusual order forecasts; (8) deal collaboratively
with unusual items; and (9) generate order
Chang and 8 The model is based on VICS (2004) with the same four activities;
Wang (2008) however, it incorporates the DMAIC (define, measure, analyse,
improve and control) cycle from Six Sigma methodology into
the demand and supply management activity to improve
forecast accuracy
Du et al. (2009) 3 This model is based on VICS (1998), though the authors reorganised
the model into three steps: (1) development of collaborative
arrangement and preparation of joint business plan; (2) generation of
collaborative sales and order forecast; and (3) generation of order and
execution of shipments. This last step can be subdivided into three
separate steps to include collaborative schedule production and
delivery, exception management and execution of shipments
Shu et al. (2010) 11 This model is based on VICS (1998), though the authors propose a
process with three processes and eleven steps: (1) decompose and
search for a module; (2) reach a forward collaboration agreement,
(3) create a collaboration plan; (4) forecast sales; (5) confirm exceptions
in sales forecasts; (6) resolve exceptions in sales forecasts; (7) order
forecasts; (8) confirm exceptions in order forecasts; (9) resolve
exceptions in order forecasts; (10) create an order; and (11) produce
and service. The three first steps correspond to the planning process,
Table II. steps (4) to (9) correspond to the forecasting process and the last two
CPFR models steps comprise the replenishment process
 2004; Ireland, 2005; Simatupang and Sridharan, 2005; Cassivi, 2006; Danese, 2007; CPFR: a
D’Aubeterre et al., 2008). Objectives and requirements of all trading partners are literature
discussed and clarified (Caridi et al., 2005; Cassivi, 2006), and a joint business plan is
created to identify the significant events that affect supply and demand in the planning
review
period (e.g. promotion, product introductions), logistics parameters (e.g. safety stocks,
frozen periods, delivery dates, order minimums and multiples), the information to be
exchanged and the exception criteria to resolve planning variances between the trading 983
partner’s demand forecasts (Ireland, 2005; Simatupang and Sridharan, 2005; Cassivi,
2006; Danese, 2007; Chang and Wang, 2008; Shu et al., 2010). During the forecasting
process, the volumes of sales are forecast, the differences between the trading partners’
volumes (exceptions) are discussed and a mutually agreed sales forecast is created.
The combination of sales forecasts, inventory levels, inventory strategies and other
information make it possible to generate a specific order forecast that allows the seller
simultaneously to: first, allocate production capacity against demand; and second,
minimise safety stock. The exceptions are again discussed, and a common order
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 06:39 17 September 2015 (PT)

forecast is created. Finally, the replenishment plan is created, thus transforming the
order forecast into a committed order (Simatupang and Sridharan, 2005; Caridi et al.,
2005; Danese, 2007).
The VICS model proposed in 1998 was used as the basis for many academic models
presented in the literature, as discussed herein.
Caridi et al. (2005, 2006) propose two CPFR models based on VICS (1998). The models
embrace autonomous agents with varying degrees of capabilities – the advanced
model and the learning model – both of which are compared with the traditional CPFR
model without agents. Caridi et al. (2005, 2006) argue that the order and forecast resolved
exceptions steps can be optimised and automated with the use of autonomous agents.
The proposed models use the autonomous agents to optimise the exchange of
information as well as the collaboration and negotiations among trading partners. In the
advanced model, all variables are monitored by the autonomous agent who proposes
solutions according to the rules pre-defined in the front-end agreement. In the learning
model, the autonomous agent analyses system parameters and rewrites the collaboration
rules (from the front-end agreement). Through simulation, the authors conclude that
CPFR models with intelligent agents exhibit better results compared to those of the
traditional CPFR model.
According to Chang et al. (2007), the VICS first model does not adequately address
the questions of market strategy and collaborative marketing, as it does not consider
the behaviours of the competitors. Accordingly, the authors propose an extended CPFR
(A-CPFR) model, which is also based on VICS (1998), that includes an Application
Service Provider (ASP) within the model. The ASP collects information from point-of-
sales from the major chain stores, supermarkets, wholesalers and web sites as well as
the databases of major news sites. The ASP provides information to the planner about
market trends, such as competitors’ sales promotions and this information is used to
adjust the replenishment programme of CPFR. The SC can then respond promptly to
temporary fluctuations in market demand. With simulations, Chang et al. (2007)
confirm that A-CPFR has a higher level of forecasting accuracy than the CPFR model.
Du et al. (2009) consider the VICS model far too complicated to implement and
therefore propose a new model that combines the CPFR concept with the collaborative
transportation management (CTM) concept. CTM aims to reduce or eliminate the
inefficiencies in the transportation process through collaboration. In the first step,
the development of collaborative arrangement and preparation of joint business plan,
 IJPPM the trading partners define the roles, responsibilities and timelines. A CPFR group is
64,7 established and a merchandise plan is agreed upon. In the collaborative sales and order
forecast generation step, the sales forecast is developed, the exceptions are resolved
and the sales forecast is converted to order forecast for a frozen period. The last step,
which includes order generation and the execution of shipments, is divided into three
tasks: the collaborative scheduling of production and delivery, exception management
984 and execution of shipments. The manufacturers in the partnership use the order
forecast to provide a capacity commitment, and they generate delivery data. If the
delivery data do not correspond to the order forecast, the CPFR group resolves the
exception. Finally, the CPFR group manages the order process. That is, they receive
and monitor the forecast and the product availability data.
Shu et al. (2010) argue that credit risk is a factor that can disrupt an agile value
enterprise (AVE) and, as a result, the SC. An AVE is composed of independent
producers and customers who form a temporary network that share technology and
meet the demand of the market by means of information technology. Based on the
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 06:39 17 September 2015 (PT)

CPFR model, the authors propose a credit granting guarantee approach in an AVE SC.
Under this mechanism, credit risk in the AVEs can be optimised such that the AVE
chain can match the working mechanism of CPFR in its capacities of real-time resource
sharing, n-tier resource allocation, mission assignment, control and supervision. This
process is organised into three stages: planning, forecasting and replenishment. The
planning stage refers to module decomposition, the search for suitable partners and the
establishment of a front-end agreement and a joint business plan. The forecasting
process encompasses the sales and order forecast, exceptions resolution and production
allocation among AVE members. Orders and manufacturing plans are developed, and
service is provided under the replenishment process. In the proposed AVE-CPFR
model, companies can assess the information, analyse credit granting issues and
construct a selection model for collaborative credit granting of the AVE SC.
Rather than adapting the VICS model, Fliedner (2003) proposes a cyclic and iterative
five-step CPFR process: first, the front-end agreement specifies objectives, resource
requirements and expectations of confidentiality; second, the joint business planning
process coalesces the individual corporate strategies and creates a partnership
strategy; third, the joint business plan sets a common calendar and establishes
exception criteria for handling planning variances between trading partners’ forecast
demands; fourth, trading partners develop and share their demand forecasts, and
exceptions are analysed; fifth, the order forecast becomes the actual order that starts
the replenishment process.
In 2004, VICS reviewed the original model that changed the linear process to a cyclic
one with four activities and eight tasks. The second model is a continuous improvement
model that focuses on effects (VICS, 2004). In this new model, VICS reorganise the three
processes (planning, forecasting and replenishment) into four collaboration activities
(strategy and planning, demand and supply management, execution, and analysis).
The original nine steps are reorganised into eight tasks. The steps provide the
sequence, but as emphasised by VICS, there is no pre-defined sequence to follow in this
new model and most companies are involved in all steps at any point in time.
Companies may also focus on a subset of the four activities, which is referred to as
“CPFR Lite”. In this case, the rest of the processes are performed through the
conventional processes. In other words, strategy and planning is similar to the first two
steps in the VICS (1998) model; demand and supply refers to the forecasting of the end
consumer’s order and shipment requirements. Execution corresponds to the placement
 of orders, preparation and delivery of shipments, reception and stock of products on CPFR: a
retail shelves, record of sales transactions and payments. When VICS incorporates the literature
order fulfilment in the model, it also includes the distributors as participants of CPFR.
Esper and Williams (2003) and Du et al. (2009) regard the inclusion of order fulfilment
review
after the order generation in CPFR under the concept of CTM. Esper and Williams
(2003) argue that order fulfilment should be included because without the ability to
effectively develop shipment forecast, the order planned during the CPFR process 985
could not be accurately executed. During analysis, key metrics to evaluate the
achievement of business goals, to formulate alternative strategies and to resolve
exceptions are calculated (VICS, 2004). While the first model is a rigid process that
requires companies to follow a set path to implement each successive activity, the new
model is an attempt to create a more flexible process (Burnette, 2010). It is suggested
that the 2004 VICS model incorporates lessons from experience and addresses certain
criticisms of the first model (VICS, 2004).
Chang and Wang (2008) propose a unified CPFR model based on the second model
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 06:39 17 September 2015 (PT)

of VICS that incorporates the DMAIC cycle from Six Sigma methodology into the
demand and supply management activity. This proposed model is intended to improve
the performance of collaborative forecasts, which is the main difference between the
proposed model and the VICS model. The defined module determines the type of data
to be shared, and the measurement module collects the sales data. The forecast
accuracy is evaluated using the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), and data
patterns are analysed using statistical tools. The improved module identifies and
implements changes in the process to improve overall forecasting accuracy, and control
charts are used to monitor the forecasting accuracy. When Chang and Wang (2008)
applied the proposed model in a case study, the average MAPE value of products
declined by more than 10 per cent. Their case study also reports financial benefits in
terms of cost reductions and revenue increases.
In summary, most alternate CPFR models are variations of the original 1998 VICS
model. Despite its relevance to CPFR practice and the related literature, several authors
contend that the 1998 VICS model is too rigid and cannot be implemented as a “slavish
step-by-step process” (ECR Europe, 2001; Larsen et al., 2003; Seifert, 2003; Burnette,
2010), is too detailed or too comprehensive (McCarthy and Golicic, 2002), is too
complicated to be implemented (Du et al., 2009), lacks collaborative performance
systems and incentive alignments as it does not restructure the distribution of costs,
risks and benefits and it does not establish common metrics to evaluate activities
(Simatupang and Sridharan, 2005). The 2004 VICS model is an attempt to quiet many of
these critics, and in turn, it is also used as a reference for other academic models, such
as Chang and Wang (2008). In 2010, VICS integrated the CPFR and sales and
operations planning (S&OP) constructs into the integrated business planning (IBP)
concept (Baumann, 2010; Smith et al., 2010; VICS, 2010). The 2010 VICS guidelines posit
that S&OP is the best model for internal collaboration, while CPFR is the best model for
external collaboration. Thus, the IBP concept synchronises operations across
individual units in the SC using an internal cross-functional process. As a new
paradigm, the IBP process aligns companies’ operational plans with their long-term
business strategies and financial plans (Baumann, 2010).
Figure 3 summarises the evolution of the concept of CPFR along the last two
decades discussed in this section. One can notice the influence of the three VICS models
in this evolution (from the CPFR linear concept to the cyclic concept and then to the IBP
concept), as well as the association of the concept with other operation management
 Downloaded by PUC RJ At 06:39 17 September 2015 (PT)

64,7

986

evolution
IJPPM

Figure 3.

CPFR models
An overview of the
Chang and Wang (2008)
In mid-1990’s emerged in North
incorporate VICS (2004) model
America the concept of CFAR as
DMAIC cycle from Six Sigma.
an evolution of other SCC. Later
the concept was renamed to CPFR VICS (2010) introduces
to emphasise the role of planning. the IBP concept linking
Chang et al. (2007) propose an CPFR and S&OP.
augmented CPFR model based on
VICS (1998).
Shu et al. (2010) propose
Caridi et al. (2005, 2006) based on the AVE-CPFR model
VICS (1998) suggest two models with based on VICS (1998).
autonomous agents
Du et al. (2009)
VICS (1998) publishes the VICS (2004) publishes a new combine the
linear process with nine steps. cyclic process with four activities VICS (1998)
model with the
CTM concept to
Fliedner (2003) describes CPFR in propose a new
five iterative steps. model.

90s 1998 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
-19 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 201
Mid
 subjects, such as CTM, Six Sigma and S&OP. It is also worth mentioning the amount of CPFR: a
different models published in the last 11 years that focus in the improvement of the literature
CPFR performance, simplifying the implementation or addressing certain criticisms of
previous models.
review

7. Conclusions
This paper provides a systematic review aimed to synthesise the highly dispersed 987
literature on CPFR. It complements previous literature reviews in the subject (Thomé
et al., 2014; Eksoz et al., 2014) with a focus on CPFR implementation processes, models
and relationship to other SC partnering initiatives. In total, 659 abstracts and 56
full-text papers were initially retrieved, and 50 were analysed for the final review.
The review followed a systematic and objectively verifiable methodology of research
synthesis, thereby enabling replication and objective back check on results.
A common and universally accepted definition of CPFR configurations was not
found, but several variations of the 1998 and 2004 VICS models, with the exception of
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 06:39 17 September 2015 (PT)

Fliedner (2003), were found. A summary definition was proposed based on the
literature review that emphasised CPFR as being a cohesive bundle of management
practices of joint planning and decision making aimed at bridging supply and demand,
strategy and operations among SC partners with the aim of improving SC performance.
The main enablers observed in the literature were trust and ICT. Conversely, the
lack thereof was the main barrier. However, as these enablers cannot succeed alone,
the success of CPFR implementation depends on a host of contextual factors, such as
demand elasticity and uncertainty, goals of the process, number of products, SC spatial
complexity and the levels and scope of collaboration (Danese, 2011). The quality of
information sharing, trust and ICT appeared as powerful CPFR levers.
Numerous terms exists in the CPFR literature that refer to the same basic concepts,
such as steps, stages, tasks and activities. The terms vary from author to author and
from model to model with respect to the same author (e.g. steps and tasks in the 1998
and 2004 VICS models). There is no consensus with respect to the use of the terms and
no taxonomy regarding their use, thereby making research synthesis and meta-
analysis difficult. It is also difficult to summarise the implementation steps for CPFR as
there is no agreement about the number of steps or the order in which the steps should
be implemented. However, the variants of the CPFR model are based on the same
building principles as those of the basic VICS model, thereby encompassing the four
foundations of collaboration, planning, forecast and replenishment. Furthermore,
several authors agree that a given CPFR configuration is context-dependent and
can present a variety of formats and that a given network can implement several
simultaneously or limit the collaboration to some rather than all of the steps of the basic
VICS model (ECR Europe, 2001; Larsen et al., 2003; VICS, 2004; Danese, 2011). Several
authors noted that SC configurations other than CPFR, such as VMI and CR, can
provide the best results at a lower cost under specific circumstances (e.g. McCarthy and
Golicic, 2002; Sari, 2008a, b; Yuan et al., 2010). As the choice of the most adequate SCC
initiative is not an easy task, it should embrace issues such as performance trade-offs
(Sari, 2008a, b), the power of retailer-supplier relationships (Tyan and Wee, 2003)
knowledge and technology levels as well as trust in trading partners (Chen et al., 2007;
Yuan et al., 2010). Moreover, CPFR can be implemented successfully when linked to
other SCC initiatives, such as VMI, JMI or CR (Danese et al., 2004; Thron et al., 2006,
2007) or with others business practices, such as S&OP and CTM (Du et al., 2009;
Baumann, 2010; Smith et al., 2010; VICS, 2010).
 IJPPM As an effort to continue the cycle of theory building based on the literature review,
64,7 seven propositions for CPFR research are put forward within this paper. These
propositions may be tested in future studies to increase external validity, to contribute
to conceptual theory building and to improve the relevance for practitioners (Meredith,
1993), as seen later in the proposed research agenda.
The results provide some guidance for practitioners and pose interesting questions
988 for future research. Practitioners can benefit from the use of ASP and simulation
models to mimic SC performance under different collaboration schemes at a lower cost
than trials and errors in real-life experiments in SCC. Important caveats to defining the
scope of collaboration are also provided, such as the number of partners, nature of
products and spatial complexity of the network, as they can guide companies in
selecting the aim and contractual arrangements for SCC. The need to carefully
outweigh the cost benefit of investments in ICT and the high relevance of the “soft”
aspects related to trust and power relationship are important areas to be scrutinised by
practitioners facing specific SC configurations.
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 06:39 17 September 2015 (PT)

The current literature review also identified research gaps that led to important
avenues for future research. Based on the research propositions synthesised in this
study and the gaps found in the literature on CPFR, the following agenda for future
research on CPFR is put forward:
• to develop taxonomies of terms and steps for CPFR, due to the lack of consensus
about them;
• to develop and test survey-based scales to measure the scope and breadth of
CPFR configurations. The research propositions enunciated in this study, those
emanated from Eksoz et al. (2014) and from case study research on CPFR
(Danese, 2011) are good candidates for replication, and verification of their
generalisation to larger samples and different industries;
• to explore further the contextual factors explaining the implementation and
results of different CPFR configurations;
• to search a better comprehension regarding the integration of CPFR with other
SCC initiatives and how companies can choose the more adequate SCC initiative
for its SC. Of particular interest is the investigation of the paradigmatic
integration of CPFR with other SCCs, such as VMI and CR, and with internal
management practices, such as S&OP;
• to explore enablers and inhibitors of CPFR implementation in empirical studies
as there are just few articles analysing deeply this issue; and
• finally, future research could extend the breadth of the literature review by
incorporating additional databases to the ones searched in this study.

References
Attaran, M. and Attaran, S. (2007), “Collaborative supply chain management: the most promising
practice for building efficient and sustainable supply chains”, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 390-404.
Attaran, M. (2004), “Nurturing the supply chain”, Industrial Management, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 16-20.
Audy, J.-F., Lehoux, N., D’Amours, S. and Rönnqvist, M. (2012), “A framework for an efficient
implementation of logistics collaborations”, International Transactions in Operational
Research, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 633-657.
 Barratt, M. and Oliveira, A. (2001), “Exploring the experiences of collaborative planning CPFR: a
initiatives”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management , Vol. 31
No. 4, pp. 266-289.
literature
Baumann, F. (2010), “The shelf-connected supply chain: strategically linking CPFR with S&OP at
review
the executive level”, Journal of Business Forecasting, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 21-28.
Boddy, D., Macbeth, D. and Wagner, B. (2000), “Implementing collacoration between
organizations: an empirical study of supply chain partnering”, Journal of Management 989
Studies, Vol. 37 No. 7, pp. 1003-1018.
Burgess, K., Singh, P.J. and Koroglu, R. (2006), “Supply chain management: a structured literature
review and implications for future research”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 703-729.
Burnette, R. (2010), “CPFR: fact, fiction, or fantasy?”, Journal of Business Forecasting, Vol. 29
No. 4, pp. 32-35.
Büyüközkan, G. and Vardaloğlu, Z. (2012), “Analyzing of CPFR success factors using fuzzy
cognitive maps in retail industry”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 39 No. 12,
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 06:39 17 September 2015 (PT)

pp. 10438-10455.
Büyüközkan, G., Feyzioğlu, O. and Vardaloğlu, Z. (2009), “Analyzing CPFR supporting factors
with fuzzy cognitive map approach”, World Academy of Science, Vol. 31, pp. 412-417.
Caridi, M., Cigolini, R. and De Marco, D. (2005), “Improving supply-chain collaboration by linking
intelligent agents to CPFR”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 43 No. 20,
pp. 4191-4218.
Caridi, M., Cigolini, R. and Marco, D. (2006), “Linking autonomous agents to CPFR to improve
SCM”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 465-482.
Cassivi, L. (2006), “Collaboration planning in a supply chain”, Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 249-258.
Chang, K.K. and Wang, F.K. (2008), “Applying six sigma methodology to collaborative
forecasting”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 39
Nos 9-10, pp. 1033-1044.
Chang, T.-H., Fu, H.-P., Lee, W.-I., Lin, Y. and Hsueh, H.-C. (2007), “A study of an augmented CPFR
model for the 3C retail industry”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 200-209.
Chen, M.-C., Yang, T. and Li, H.-C. (2007), “Evaluating the supply chain performance of IT-based
inter-enterprise collaboration”, Information & Management, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 524-534.
Cohen, J. (1960), ““A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales”, Educational and Psychological
Measurement, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 37-46.
Cooper, H. (2010), Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis: A Step-by-Step Approach, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
D’Aubeterre, F., Singh, R. and Iyer, L. (2008), “A semantic approach to secure collaborative inter-
organizational ebusiness processes (SSCIOBP)”, Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, Vol. 9 Nos 3-4, pp. 231-266.
Danese, P. (2006a), “Collaboration forms, information and communication technologies, and
coordination mechanisms in CPFR”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 44
No. 6, pp. 3207-3226.
Danese, P. (2006b), “How contextual factors shape CPFR collaborations: a theoretical framework”,
Supply Chain Forum, an International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 16-26.
Danese, P. (2007), “Designing CPFR collaborations: insights from seven case studies”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 181-204.
 IJPPM Danese, P. (2011), “Towards a contingency theory of collaborative planning initiatives in supply
networks”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 1081-1103.
64,7
Danese, P., Romano, P. and Vinelli, A. (2004), “Managing business processes across supply
networks: the role of coordination mechanisms”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management, Vol. 10 Nos 4-5, pp. 165-177.
Derrouiche, R., Neubert, G. and Bouras, A. (2008), “Supply chain management: a framework to
990 characterize the collaborative strategies”, International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 426-439.
Du, X.F., Leung, S.C.H., Zhang, J.L. and Lai, K.K. (2009), “Procurement of agricultural products
using the CPFR approach”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14
No. 4, pp. 253-258.
ECR, Europe (2001), A Guide to CPFR Implementation (ECR Europe Facilitated by Accenture),
ECR, Europe, Brussels.
Eksoz, C., Mansouri, A. and Bourlakis, M. (2014), “Collaborative forecasting in the food supply
chain: a conceptual framework”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 158,
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 06:39 17 September 2015 (PT)

pp. 120-135.
Esper, T.L. and Williams, L.R. (2003), “The value of collaborative transportation management
(CTM): its relationship to CPFR and information technology”, Transportation Journal,
Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 55-65.
Fliedner, G. (2003), “CPFR: an emerging supply chain tool”, Industrial Management & Data
Systems, Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 14-21.
Ghosh, A. and Fedorowicz, J. (2008), “The role of trust in supply chain governance”, Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 453-470.
Holmström, J., Främling, K., Kaipia, R. and Saranen, J. (2002), “Collaborative planning forecasting
and replenishment: new solutions needed for mass collaboration”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 136-145.
Holweg, M., Disney, S., Holmström, J. and Småros, J. (2005), “Supply chain collaboration:
making sense of the strategy continuum”, European Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 170-181.
Hopayian, K. (2001), “The need for caution in interpreting high quality systematic reviews”,
Education and debate, Vol. 323 No. 7314, pp. 681-684.
Hvolby, H.-H. and Trienekens, J.H. (2010), “Challenges in business systems integration”,
Computers in Industry, Vol. 61 No. 9, pp. 808-812.
Ireland, R. (2005), “ABC of collaborative planning forecasting and replenishment”, The Journal of
Business Forecasting, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 3-10.
Kumar, G. and Banerjee, R.H. (2012), “Collaboration in supply chain: an assessment of
hierarchical model using partial least squares (PLS)”, International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management, Vol. 61 No. 8, pp. 897-918.
Lapide, L. (2010), “A history of CPFR”, Journal of Business Forecasting, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 29-31.
Larsen, T.S., Thernøe, C. and Andresen, C. (2003), “Supply chain collaboration: theoretical
perspectives and empirical evidence”, International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 531-549.
McCarthy, T.M. and Golicic, S.L. (2002), “Implementing collaborative forecasting to improve
supply chain performance”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 431-454.
Mentzer, J.T., Soonhing, M. and Zacharia, Z.G. (2000), “The nature of interfir partnering in supply
chian management”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 549-568.
 Meredith, J. (1993), “Theory building through conceptual methods”, International Journal of CPFR: a
Operations Production Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 3-11.
literature
Poler, R., Hernandez, J.E., Mula, J. and Lario, F.C. (2008), “Collaborative forecasting in networked review
manufacturing enterprises”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 19
No. 4, pp. 514-528.
Raghunathan, S. (1999), “Interorganizational collaborative forecasting and replenishment
systems and supply chain implications”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 1053-1071. 991
Ramanathan, U. (2014), “Performance of supply chain collaboration − a simulation study”, Expert
Systems with Applications, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 210-220.
Ramanathan, U. and Gunasekaran, A. (2014), “Supply chain collaboration: impact of success in
long-term partnerships”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 147, pp. 252-259.
Rowley, J. and Slack, F. (2004), “Conducting a literature review”, Management Research News,
Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 31-39.
Sari, K. (2008a), “Inventory inaccuracy and performance of collaborative supply chain practices”,
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 108 No. 4, pp. 495-509.
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 06:39 17 September 2015 (PT)

Sari, K. (2008b), “On the benefits of CPFR and VMI: a comparative simulation study”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 113 No. 2, pp. 575-586.
Seifert, D. (2003), Collaborative Planning Forecasting and Replenishment: How to Create a Supply
Chain Advantage, AMACOM, Saranac Lake, NY.
Seuring, S. and Müller, M. (2008), “From a literature review to a conceptual framework for
sustainable supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 15,
pp. 1699-1710.
Sherman, R.J. (1998), “Collaborative planning, forecasting and replenishment (CPFR): realizing
the promise of efficient consumer response through collaborative technology”, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Pratice, Vol. 6 No 4, pp. 6-9.
Shu, T., Chen, S., Xie, C., Wang, S. and Lai, K.K. (2010), “AVE-CPFR working chains on the basis
of selection model of collaborative credit-granting guarantee approaches”, International
Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 301-325.
Simatupang, T.M. and Sridharan, R. (2002), “The collaborative supply chain”, The International
Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 15-30.
Simatupang, T.M. and Sridharan, R. (2005), “An integrative framework for supply chain
collaboration”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 257-274.
Småros, J. (2007), “Forecasting collaboration in the European grocery sector: observations from a
case study”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 702-716.
Smith, L., Andraski, J.C. and Fawcett, S.E. (2010), “Integrated business planning: a roadmap to
linking S&OP and CPFR”, Journal of Business Forecasting, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 4-13.
Sousa, R.S. and Voss, C.A. (2008), “Contingency research in operations management practices”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 697-713.
Stank, T.P., Daugherty, P.J. and Autry, C.W. (1999), “Collaborative planning: supporting automatic
replenishment programs”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 75-85.
Thomé, A.M.T., Hollmann, R.L. and Scavarda, L.F. (2014), “Research synthesis in collaborative
planning forecast and replenishment”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 114
No. 6, pp. 949-965.
Thomé, A.M.T., Scavarda, L.F., Fernandez, N.S. and Scavarda, A.J. (2012a), “Sales and operations
planning: a research synthesis”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 138
No. 1, pp. 1-13.
 IJPPM Thomé, A.M.T., Scavarda, L.F., Fernandez, N.S. and Scavarda, A.J. (2012b), “Sales and operations
planning and the firm performance”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
64,7 Management, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 359-381.
Thron, T., Nagy, G. and Wassan, N. (2006), “The impact of various levels of collaborative
engagement on global and individual supply chain performance”, International Journal
of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 596-620.
992 Thron, T., Nagy, G. and Wassan, N. (2007), “Evaluating alternative supply chain structures for
perishable products”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 364-384.
Tyan, J. and Wee, H.-M. (2003), “Vendor management inventory: a survey of the Taiwanese
grocery industry”, Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 11-18.
VICS (1998), “CPFR Guidelines”, available at: www.cpfr.org (accessed February 2005).
VICS (2004), “CPFR an overview”, available at: www.gs1us.org (accessed January 2013).
VICS (2010), “Linking CPFR and S&OP: a roadmap to integrated business planning”, available at:
www.gs1us.org (accessed January 2013).
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 06:39 17 September 2015 (PT)

Weintraub, I. (2000), “The impact of alternative presses on scientific communication”,

The International Journal on Grey Literature, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 54-59.
Whetten, D.A. (1989), “What constitutes a theoretical contribution?”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol.14 No. 4, pp. 490-495.
Wu, Y.N. and Cheng, T.C.E. (2008), “The impact of information sharing in a multiple-echelon
supply chain”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 115 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Yao, Y., Kohli, R., Sherer, S.A. and Cederlund, J. (2013), “Learning curves in collaborative planning,
forecasting, and replenishment (CPFR) information systems: an empirical analysis form a
mobile phone manufacturer”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 285-297.
Yuan, X., Shen, L. and Ashayeri, J. (2010), “Dynamic simulation assessment of collaboration
strategies to manage demand gap in high-tech product diffusion”, Robotics and
Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 647-657.

Further reading
Alcover, C. and Topa, G. (2014), “Bridge employment in Spain: a possible option to postpone
retirement”, in Alcover, C., Topa, G., Parry, E., Fraccaroli, F. and Depolo, M. (Eds), Bridge
Employment: A Research Handbook, Routledge, London, pp. 115-137.
Choi, T.-M. and Sethi, S. (2010), “Innovative quick response programs: a review”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 127 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Henkens, K. and van Solinge, H. (2014), “Bridge employment in The Netherlands: who, what and
why?”, in Alcover, C., Topa, G., Parry, E., Fraccaroli, F. and Depolo, M. (Eds), Bridge
Employment: A Research Handbook, London, pp. 27-50.
Parry, E. and Wilson, D.B. (2014), “Career transitions at retirement age in the United Kingdom:
Bridge employment or continued career progression?”, in Alcover, C., Topa, G., Parry, E.,
Fraccaroli, F. and Depolo, M. (Eds), Bridge Employment: A Research Handbook, Routledge,
London, pp. 138-153.

About the authors

Roberto Luis Hollmann is an Engineer at the Petrobras and a PhD candidate at the PUC-Rio. He
obtained his Undergraduate Degree at the UNIVATES and his Master Degree in industrial
engineering at the PUC-Rio. His research interests include operations management, mainly S&OP
and CPFR. He published in the Industrial Management & Data System and in several academic
conferences. Roberto Luis Hollmann is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
[email protected]
 Luiz Felipe Scavarda is an Associate Professor of the Industrial Engineering Department of CPFR: a
the PUC-Rio (Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro). He obtained his Undergraduate,
Master and Doctoral Degrees at the PUC-Rio. During 2000/2002 he joined the German Fraunhofer
literature
Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation and in 2009 he was a Visiting review
Research-Professor at the Vienna University of Technology. His research interests include supply
chain flexibility, supply chain risk management, product variety management and S&OP.
Currently he is a Researcher with grant by the Brazilian National Research and Development
Center (CNPq). He has published in journals as International Journal of Operations & Production 993
Management, International Journal of Production Economics, International Journal of Production
Research, Interfaces, Industrial Management & Data System, International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management and Bioresource Technology.
Antônio Márcio Tavares Thomé obtained his Doctoral and Master Degrees in Industrial
Engineering Department at the PUC-Rio (Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro). He
graduated at the Political Sciences Institute of Bordeaux, France and obtained a Master degree in
Demography at the Sorbonne-Nouvelle, University of Paris I. In 2014 he joined the Chair for
Information Systems and Supply Chain Management at the University of Münster. His interests
in the field of engineering and organisational sciences are sales and operations planning, supply
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 06:39 17 September 2015 (PT)

chain management, inventory control and operations research. He was the head of the Evaluation
and Statistics Department at BEMFAM – family welfare in Brazil. He was formerly with
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, The Population Council and Cambridge Consulting
Corporation. Currently he is an Assistent Professor at the Industrial Engineering Department of
the PUC-Rio (Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro) and a Research Affiliate at the
Universidade Católica Portuguesa. He has published in international Journals as Population
Studies, Population et Société, Studies in Family Planning, International Journal of Production
Economics, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, International
Journal of Production Research and Industrial Management & Data System.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

View publication stats